Wilder Vetoes Credit Card Interest Bill

Gov. Also Says Abortion Bill Unacceptable

RICHMOND — Gov. Doug Wilder on Monday vetoed a bill that would have allowed credit card companies to charge consumers interest even if the consumers pay off their monthly credit balances.

The governor also signalled that he will not sign the current draft of a bill that would require a parent to be told before a girl under 18 could have an abortion. The bill needs "drastic modification" to make it acceptable, he said.

The credit card bill would have allowed banks and retailers to eliminate the 25-day grace period consumers now have to pay off their credit card debts without interest. The bill also would have allowed higher penalties to be charged if consumers are late in making a payment.

Calling the bill a "consumer tax," Wilder sent it back to the General Assembly without his signature - effectively vetoing the measure.

The bill would have made sour economic conditions worse for many consumers and would penalize those who have good credit records and pay their bills on time, he said. Someone who charged $500 would have had to pay about $6.15 in interest under the bill when they now pay none, Wilder noted.

The governor was not swayed by proponents' arguments that the bill would save about 2,000 jobs by keeping bank credit card operations in Virginia. He also complained that the public had not been given enough opportunity to respond to the measure before it flew through the assembly.

Jean Ann Fox, president of the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, hailed Wilder's veto. "I'm very pleased that the governor has stepped into the breech and protected consumers against these powerful lobbyists.

"Any jobs you get from deregulating credit cards would not have been worth it for consumers - especially in a recession," Fox said.

Wilder's denunciation of the credit card bill is a political blow to Lt. Gov. Donald S. Beyer Jr., the measure's chief proponent.

Beyer has maintained that market pressures would keep banks from automatically eliminating the grace period.

Wilder said of Beyer, "I certainly would not want to see anything done that would damage ... him, but that's not the issue.

"Too often we put personal concerns where they should not be," Wilder said. "The question is: Is it in the best interest of the whole commonwealth?"

In a statement issued by his office, Beyer said, "I respect the governor's decision on this complex issue, but I respectfully disagree."

On the abortion bill, the governor sent strong signals that he will not sign the measure into law.

"This measure is not carefully crafted," said Wilder, who promised in his 1989 gubernatorial campaign to sign a parental notification bill if it were properly drafted.

He said he is concerned that the bill will cost the state money since it allows girls, in certain instances, to have a hearing in front of a state-paid judge instead of going to a parent.

Sen. Mark Earley, R-Chesapeake, who led the fight to get the bill through the assembly, said Wilder's concern over fiscal impact "is just a red herring."

The assembly routinely approves bills that increase judges' workloads, Earley said, and any additional work the notification bill would generate "certainly is something the system could absorb."

Earley said Wilder may only be looking for an excuse not to sign the bill. "If he does not sign the bill it is because he has decided politically he does not want to do it," Earley said.

Backers and opponents of the bill both said they are uncertain about what Wilder will do. His public signals have been mixed, they said.

Both point to Wilder's campaign pledge, though. Notification supporters said he must sign the bill to keep that promise. Opponents said Wilder promised to sign some notification bill, but that it does not have to be this one.

"He never said he would sign anything that came to his desk," said Karen Raschke, a Planned Parenthood lobbyist. "He said he would sign a bill. He didn't say he would sign this bill."